The Downfalls of Standardized Testing, published in Veritas on 3/30
I recently took my senior comprehensive exam for my Sociology major. Although this test no longer has any weight in determining graduation or Latin honors eligibility, it is still used by the department to estimate effectiveness of the faculty in teaching core and common courses. This is done by comparing scores across many colleges and universities, but only those that use the same measure from ETS can be included. Even this comparison is difficult because each college and university has a unique set of faculty, courses, and curriculum. This is concerning because such standardized tests have the propensity to lead to a standardized curriculum and it is my opinion that a standardized curriculum does not encourage true learning.
There are many different tests that serve as standards of learning. Typically, one of two types is used: achievement or aptitude. All students are familiar with both. Achievement tests measure “the skill or knowledge attained by an individual in one or more fields of study.” Achievement tests include the SOL in Virginia, the PSSA in Pennsylvania, the MSA and HSA in Maryland, and the NJASK in New Jersey, as well as my senior comprehensive exam. Aptitude tests “predict an individual’s ability to learn certain skills.” These include the SAT, the GRE, the LSAT, and the PRAXIS. There are also intelligence tests, used “to determine the relative mental capacity of a person to learn,” but we won’t worry about those right now. (Definitions taken from merriam-webster.com)
So what are the downfalls of standardized testing, such as achievement tests? First, as mentioned above, standardized achievement tests encourage the development of a standardized curriculum. Such a curriculum will most likely focus on the memorization of facts, because this is more conducive to multiple-choice tests. This is not genuine learning. Sure, rote memorization might help you win some games of at-home jeopardy or learn simple job skills, but critical thinking and other abstract skills provide far more opportunities. Related to this is the second downfall: achievement tests cannot measure such abstract skills. This means that reward emphasis is placed on rote memorization and students that excel in abstract areas over fact knowledge may be overlooked or underestimated.
Third, achievement tests determine funding eligibility and job security, which means that standardization is valued more than creativity and unique thought. Fourth, achievement tests encourage teachers to teach to the test so that their students will perform better in order to meet funding eligibility and job security requirements. Again, this leads to rote memorization and generally disengaged students. Even though curriculum currently includes subject matter that is not included on the achievement test, teachers tend to divide material into what will and will not be included in the test. Additionally, teachers tend to devote a great deal of time to review, which leads to the fifth downfall: measuring crammed knowledge does not measure truly retained knowledge and such tests may favor students who are more inclined to such study methods. And sixth, such pressure to perform well in order to secure funding and teaching jobs may encourage students to cheat.
Seventh, achievement tests create a disadvantage for a variety of students, such as those who are not good test takers or strong readers or those who are more active and do not want to sit still all day. And eighth, standardization through achievement tests tends to encourage tracking and labeling. Personally, I see tracking as a way of creating pigeonholes and boxes that students must fit into. I was homeschooled, so I do not have personal experience with this phenomenon, but as a student who was average in math and excelled in other areas, I can imagine how tracking would not have served me well. Had my curriculum been based on my math knowledge, I would have been bored in other subjects. Had my curriculum been based on my writing and reading abilities, I would have been frustrated with higher-level math. Achievement tests are likely to lead to students being reduced to a single number, whether a test score or a performance level, and this serves as a way of stereotyping students and ignoring individual differences in learning style, talent, and interest. These stereotypes can also serve as labels. For example, if a student is placed in the “turtle” group and if this student comes to believe that he or she is a slow student, he or she will probably never strive to excel and may never reach his or her full potential.
Many of the above downfalls similarly apply to aptitude tests, the effectiveness of which is quite controversial. Essentially, aptitude tests such as the SAT are designed to predict a student’s ability to learn and succeed. In a sense, they can be thought of as a measure of a student’s effectiveness at being a student. But how accurate are such measures? Probably not very. For example, I have a friend whose SAT score could have secured him a full scholarship at any school. He chose not to attend college and is now living on his own and making music because this is what he wanted to do with his talents and interests. However, many view him as a poor student because of this decision, even though he is still extremely intelligent. Further, the high pressure on students to do well on the SAT in order to secure admission to and scholarships for college can lead to a great deal of stress and concern. For example, I took my SAT three times in order to increase my eligibility for scholarships and, to this day, I despise scantrons.
So what should we do? Reducing the emphasis on standardization does not need to eliminate standards altogether. But let us take a lesson from alternative methods of education. My mother certainly never taught to the test, but I scored extremely well on achievement tests, which are required in Pennsylvania for all students in third, fifth, and eighth grades. There may have been some detailed facts that I could not recite, but I knew enough and could think well enough to excel in these measures. Similarly, such an emphasis on standardization can actually decrease the standards and expectations we hold of our students. We are indoctrinating them with the belief that it is more important to memorize and recite than to think and reason and we will soon experience an extreme shortage of creative thinkers because of this. Now, before it is too late, we must encourage these creative thinkers to remain outside of the box, empower others to do the same, and alter society’s view of education being all about the test score.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Veritas Article: 3/23
The Positivity of Negative Rights, published in Veritas on 3/23
A few weeks ago, I attended the Fifth Annual International Students for Liberty Conference, which was held at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., from February 17-19. It was an incredible experience, primarily because there were over one thousand students, alumni, staff, speakers, and presenters, all of whom shared a common bond: an interest in liberty and a desire to remedy the broken political system of the U.S. Even though the details of our political philosophies varied, we were not divided by dogma because we were united through common action.
Aside from this spirit of community, another highlight of ISFLC was the various breakout sessions that students could attend. These sessions were hosted by a variety of organizations, such as the Atlas Network, the CATO Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education, GOProud, the Institute for Humane Studies, Students for Liberty, and Young Americans for Liberty. I attended a number of sessions, including What is Austrian Economics?, Behind Canada: America’s Decline in Economic Freedom, Government Schooling for a Free Society?, Liberaltarians: Examining Liberty Through the Gender/Race/Class Lens, Law Enforcement Socialism, and The Militarization of Main Street.
One of my favorite sessions was titled, Can We Kill the Children from Salem? This session was sponsored by the Institute of Humane Studies and featured James Stacey Taylor, a professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey. Taylor spoke about negative and positive rights: what they accomplish, how they interact, and how they are different. He started with a historical overview of moral and legal rights. First, Immanuel Kant said that we should believe in natural rights because we need certain goods to have a flourishing life, such as property, autonomy, expression, interaction, and so on. He also believed that all people are morally equivalent, therefore allowing acquired goods to be legitimately protected from force by force and requiring all people to recognize the equal rights of others. Second, Thomas Hobbes thought that natural rights may not exist, but that this was irrelevant because all people are mutually vulnerable. This view leads to rights based upon reciprocity, in that all people must respect others in a way that they want to be respected. Later, John Stuart Mills combined these philosophies in his harm principle, saying that acting as if all people have natural rights is the best way to ensure natural rights and promote flourishing lives.
Taylor then went on to compare negative and positive rights. Simply stated, negative rights are freedoms from, whereas positive rights are freedoms to. For example, under negative rights, you have the right to be free from interference by others (interference in healthcare, property, income, etc.) and others have a duty to refrain from interfering with those things. On the other hand, under positive rights, you have the right to have free access to such things and others have a duty to provide such things to you. After giving this overview, Taylor used two audience members to illustrate how positive rights encroach upon negative rights.
Phil has money and his negative right says that others have the duty to refrain from taking his money. Justin has no money and his positive rights say that others have the duty to provide money to him. This is accomplished by taking Phil's money, thus violating Phil’s negative rights in order to provide for Justin’s positive rights. This means that negative and positive rights cannot exist at the same time and that we must choose to support one or the other. Personally, along with Taylor and most other conference attendees, I am a supporter of negative rights because they seem more basic and fundamental and therefore more natural and legitimate.
However, the U.S. is a land of regulation and welfare that is based primarily on positive rights and results in extremely limited negative rights. The positive right to regulated food that has been deemed as safe violates my negative right from interference in my desire to purchase raw milk or sell homemade lemonade. The positive right to relatively equal access to money violates my negative right from interference in my earned income. The positive right to protection from violent crime violates my negative right from interference in my self-protection through gun ownership.
Even so, I will not say that positive rights are all bad, because they probably are not. Additionally, certain rights can be either negative or positive: the right from interference in speaking freely and the right to free speech. The difference is that the basis of negative rights is freedom from interference, whereas the basis of positive rights is freedom to providence. Providence implies privilege and privileges are granted, not inherent. Thus, when the provided positive rights of one person violate the basic, fundamental negative rights of another person, we will know that the positive rights have gone too far.
A few weeks ago, I attended the Fifth Annual International Students for Liberty Conference, which was held at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., from February 17-19. It was an incredible experience, primarily because there were over one thousand students, alumni, staff, speakers, and presenters, all of whom shared a common bond: an interest in liberty and a desire to remedy the broken political system of the U.S. Even though the details of our political philosophies varied, we were not divided by dogma because we were united through common action.
Aside from this spirit of community, another highlight of ISFLC was the various breakout sessions that students could attend. These sessions were hosted by a variety of organizations, such as the Atlas Network, the CATO Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education, GOProud, the Institute for Humane Studies, Students for Liberty, and Young Americans for Liberty. I attended a number of sessions, including What is Austrian Economics?, Behind Canada: America’s Decline in Economic Freedom, Government Schooling for a Free Society?, Liberaltarians: Examining Liberty Through the Gender/Race/Class Lens, Law Enforcement Socialism, and The Militarization of Main Street.
One of my favorite sessions was titled, Can We Kill the Children from Salem? This session was sponsored by the Institute of Humane Studies and featured James Stacey Taylor, a professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey. Taylor spoke about negative and positive rights: what they accomplish, how they interact, and how they are different. He started with a historical overview of moral and legal rights. First, Immanuel Kant said that we should believe in natural rights because we need certain goods to have a flourishing life, such as property, autonomy, expression, interaction, and so on. He also believed that all people are morally equivalent, therefore allowing acquired goods to be legitimately protected from force by force and requiring all people to recognize the equal rights of others. Second, Thomas Hobbes thought that natural rights may not exist, but that this was irrelevant because all people are mutually vulnerable. This view leads to rights based upon reciprocity, in that all people must respect others in a way that they want to be respected. Later, John Stuart Mills combined these philosophies in his harm principle, saying that acting as if all people have natural rights is the best way to ensure natural rights and promote flourishing lives.
Taylor then went on to compare negative and positive rights. Simply stated, negative rights are freedoms from, whereas positive rights are freedoms to. For example, under negative rights, you have the right to be free from interference by others (interference in healthcare, property, income, etc.) and others have a duty to refrain from interfering with those things. On the other hand, under positive rights, you have the right to have free access to such things and others have a duty to provide such things to you. After giving this overview, Taylor used two audience members to illustrate how positive rights encroach upon negative rights.
Phil has money and his negative right says that others have the duty to refrain from taking his money. Justin has no money and his positive rights say that others have the duty to provide money to him. This is accomplished by taking Phil's money, thus violating Phil’s negative rights in order to provide for Justin’s positive rights. This means that negative and positive rights cannot exist at the same time and that we must choose to support one or the other. Personally, along with Taylor and most other conference attendees, I am a supporter of negative rights because they seem more basic and fundamental and therefore more natural and legitimate.
However, the U.S. is a land of regulation and welfare that is based primarily on positive rights and results in extremely limited negative rights. The positive right to regulated food that has been deemed as safe violates my negative right from interference in my desire to purchase raw milk or sell homemade lemonade. The positive right to relatively equal access to money violates my negative right from interference in my earned income. The positive right to protection from violent crime violates my negative right from interference in my self-protection through gun ownership.
Even so, I will not say that positive rights are all bad, because they probably are not. Additionally, certain rights can be either negative or positive: the right from interference in speaking freely and the right to free speech. The difference is that the basis of negative rights is freedom from interference, whereas the basis of positive rights is freedom to providence. Providence implies privilege and privileges are granted, not inherent. Thus, when the provided positive rights of one person violate the basic, fundamental negative rights of another person, we will know that the positive rights have gone too far.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Recent Publications
Although I have not been blogging, I have been writing.
An updated version of my previous post (complete with a much stronger conclusion)
was published recently in my school's paper.
http://veritas.bridgewater.edu/blog/2012/03/15/reforming-general-education/
Most recently, my article about Negative and Positive Rights was published, although
that is not yet posted online.
Next week, my article about The Downfalls of Standardized Education will be published.
For the following week, I hope to write something a bit more positive and optimistic,
since my three articles thus far has been primarily fairly strong criticisms.
An updated version of my previous post (complete with a much stronger conclusion)
was published recently in my school's paper.
http://veritas.bridgewater.edu/blog/2012/03/15/reforming-general-education/
Most recently, my article about Negative and Positive Rights was published, although
that is not yet posted online.
Next week, my article about The Downfalls of Standardized Education will be published.
For the following week, I hope to write something a bit more positive and optimistic,
since my three articles thus far has been primarily fairly strong criticisms.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Gen-Ed Courses
I am so incredibly frustrated with this.
General Education Courses
At my college, students must take a total of twenty-one courses (sixty credits, plus
two to six additional credits of lab work) to fulfill their general education
requirements. A major consists of thirty to forty-eight credits. This is especially
difficult for education majors because of extensive state licensure requirements.
According to the president of my college, this number of general education credits
is unusually high when compared to other liberal arts colleges. The president also
is in favor of decreasing the volume of general education requirements in exchange
for an increase in freedom. He recognizes that some students, - whether uninterested,
under-achieving, or devoted to something else (sports, for example) - will flaunt
this freedom and not take full advantage of the various course opportunities. He says,
however, that the freedom of all should not be restrained for the irresponsibility of
the few. It sounds like he's a Libertarian at heart.
I agree. Mostly.
However, I think that a reduction of requirements (and a simultaneous increase of
freedoms) would need to be coupled with a change in mindset.
There are lots of reasons why students complain about gen-eds, but I think that none
of them get at the heart of the real issue.
Is it because gen-eds are outside of the student's major field of study? Maybe.
Is it because they are unrelated and therefore not applicable? Maybe.
Is it because gen-eds are unfamiliar and therefore more difficult? Maybe.
But probably not.
These complaints are surface symptoms of a deeper issue. Well, two deeper issues.
In short, gen-eds are too gen-ed-y.
First, it is not that they are outside of the major, unrelated/not applicable, or
unfamiliar/difficult. Gen-eds are frustrating because they are viewed as and
treated like gen-eds by the faculty and students, which results in these three
surface symptoms. This mindset influences the way faculty approaches a gen-ed to
teach and the way a student approaches a gen-ed to learn.
Gen-eds are - simply put - seen as gen-eds. They are viewed as being outside of the
major, and therefore no effort is made to relate the gen-ed material to various
other majors, which results in the increased unfamiliarity and disproportionate
difficulty of gen-ed courses.
This is a mindset issue. But yes, I do wonder how practical it would be for faculty
to draw connections between a gen-ed course and as many as thirty-seven other fields.
In the meantime, perhaps this can be overcome with a small increase in personal
effort. In order to counteract the gen-ed-i-ness of gen-eds, maybe students can
seek to draw their own connections between their field and another, seemingly
unrelated field. Maybe. One potential problem is that most gen-ed requirements are
completed during a student's first year, when major courses generally are not taken
and when many students have not yet chosen a major field of study. Additionally, the
mindset that surrounds gen-eds does not create an environment conducive to increased
personal effort, which leads us to the second deeper issue.
Second, gen-eds do not inspire personal effort because most are surrounded by a spirit
of expectation that tells students, "It's a gen-ed, it's an easy course, no sweat."
This is worrisome for a few reasons.
This mindset does not inspire personal effort, which means that students generally
are not motivated to study because they assume that they will do well in such an
easy course. Or they are not motivated to study because of the mindset that such a
gen-ed is not inherently important. There is clear evidence of this academic apathy
in that assignment and course grades in gen-eds tend to be bi-modal. This means that
grades are not normally-distributed (bell curve), but instead have two data points
that are most frequent. For example, in a bi-modal grade distribution, most students
have A's or B's AND D's and F's, while very few students have C's. I think this has
less to do with course difficulty and student knowledge and more to do with the fact
that all of the students are apathetic and approximately half of them are apathetic
about their apathy and the other approximate half are conscientious enough to look
over their notes once or twice before a test.
Even so, sometimes it is a nice break to have an easy course. However, gen-eds are
easy courses with hidden dangers. In addition to academic apathy, there is another
potential problem with easy courses.
Sometimes, easy courses are too easy and are therefore incredibly frustrating because
they are too easy to the point of being a genuine waste of time. This results in the
a phenomenon where the only motivation for going to class is to acquire attendance
and/or participation points and where the only motivation for completing homework
is to gain ten points. Such a waste of time is frustrating because the time devoted
to the course and sacrificed in going to class and completing assignments is far too
great when compared to the educational outcome.
There is too much time and not enough learning.
And, finally, this lack of academic investment leads us right back to the first
deeper issue of the mindset that gen-eds are not applicable or important to a student's
major field of study.
"I want to fix the world, but I can't."
11:32pm
General Education Courses
At my college, students must take a total of twenty-one courses (sixty credits, plus
two to six additional credits of lab work) to fulfill their general education
requirements. A major consists of thirty to forty-eight credits. This is especially
difficult for education majors because of extensive state licensure requirements.
According to the president of my college, this number of general education credits
is unusually high when compared to other liberal arts colleges. The president also
is in favor of decreasing the volume of general education requirements in exchange
for an increase in freedom. He recognizes that some students, - whether uninterested,
under-achieving, or devoted to something else (sports, for example) - will flaunt
this freedom and not take full advantage of the various course opportunities. He says,
however, that the freedom of all should not be restrained for the irresponsibility of
the few. It sounds like he's a Libertarian at heart.
I agree. Mostly.
However, I think that a reduction of requirements (and a simultaneous increase of
freedoms) would need to be coupled with a change in mindset.
There are lots of reasons why students complain about gen-eds, but I think that none
of them get at the heart of the real issue.
Is it because gen-eds are outside of the student's major field of study? Maybe.
Is it because they are unrelated and therefore not applicable? Maybe.
Is it because gen-eds are unfamiliar and therefore more difficult? Maybe.
But probably not.
These complaints are surface symptoms of a deeper issue. Well, two deeper issues.
In short, gen-eds are too gen-ed-y.
First, it is not that they are outside of the major, unrelated/not applicable, or
unfamiliar/difficult. Gen-eds are frustrating because they are viewed as and
treated like gen-eds by the faculty and students, which results in these three
surface symptoms. This mindset influences the way faculty approaches a gen-ed to
teach and the way a student approaches a gen-ed to learn.
Gen-eds are - simply put - seen as gen-eds. They are viewed as being outside of the
major, and therefore no effort is made to relate the gen-ed material to various
other majors, which results in the increased unfamiliarity and disproportionate
difficulty of gen-ed courses.
This is a mindset issue. But yes, I do wonder how practical it would be for faculty
to draw connections between a gen-ed course and as many as thirty-seven other fields.
In the meantime, perhaps this can be overcome with a small increase in personal
effort. In order to counteract the gen-ed-i-ness of gen-eds, maybe students can
seek to draw their own connections between their field and another, seemingly
unrelated field. Maybe. One potential problem is that most gen-ed requirements are
completed during a student's first year, when major courses generally are not taken
and when many students have not yet chosen a major field of study. Additionally, the
mindset that surrounds gen-eds does not create an environment conducive to increased
personal effort, which leads us to the second deeper issue.
Second, gen-eds do not inspire personal effort because most are surrounded by a spirit
of expectation that tells students, "It's a gen-ed, it's an easy course, no sweat."
This is worrisome for a few reasons.
This mindset does not inspire personal effort, which means that students generally
are not motivated to study because they assume that they will do well in such an
easy course. Or they are not motivated to study because of the mindset that such a
gen-ed is not inherently important. There is clear evidence of this academic apathy
in that assignment and course grades in gen-eds tend to be bi-modal. This means that
grades are not normally-distributed (bell curve), but instead have two data points
that are most frequent. For example, in a bi-modal grade distribution, most students
have A's or B's AND D's and F's, while very few students have C's. I think this has
less to do with course difficulty and student knowledge and more to do with the fact
that all of the students are apathetic and approximately half of them are apathetic
about their apathy and the other approximate half are conscientious enough to look
over their notes once or twice before a test.
Even so, sometimes it is a nice break to have an easy course. However, gen-eds are
easy courses with hidden dangers. In addition to academic apathy, there is another
potential problem with easy courses.
Sometimes, easy courses are too easy and are therefore incredibly frustrating because
they are too easy to the point of being a genuine waste of time. This results in the
a phenomenon where the only motivation for going to class is to acquire attendance
and/or participation points and where the only motivation for completing homework
is to gain ten points. Such a waste of time is frustrating because the time devoted
to the course and sacrificed in going to class and completing assignments is far too
great when compared to the educational outcome.
There is too much time and not enough learning.
And, finally, this lack of academic investment leads us right back to the first
deeper issue of the mindset that gen-eds are not applicable or important to a student's
major field of study.
"I want to fix the world, but I can't."
11:32pm
Friday, February 24, 2012
Word Nerd Semantics
Contrary to my previous plan, I will not be publishing my ISFLC notes as soon as
expected. I want them to be in a more coherent form.
Word Nerd Semantics
As some of you know, in addition to being a self-proclaimed word nerd, I am also
extremely picky about connotation. That being said, I do not believe in synonyms and
I really appreciate well-crafted semantics. Contrary to the opinion of one of my
classmates, I believe that a seemingly simple change in semantics can make a big
difference.
1) Course Title
Maybe it's because of my homeschooling background, where the semantics of a course
title was extremely important to my yearly objectives and portfolio. Such titles
were even more important for my high school transcript so that the local school
district could understand my outside-the-box learning in their inside-the-box terms.
Cooking? Life skills. Fundraising? Business math. Local field trips? History.
Is this cheating? No. It is true and engaging learning.
In my Public Mental Health class this week, we discussed the social issue of divorce
as far as it is related to community mental health. My professor mentioned proposed
local legislation that would offer (and potentially) require high school students to
take a marriage skills course. Really? First of all, more regulation and requirements
would not be conducive to learning. Second of all, are marriage skills really what
we want to require of high school students?
Why not something that would be immediately applicable? Why not something that would
be applicable to a variety of relationship situations? What about a relationship
skills course? What about a conflict transformation course? What about an interpersonal
communication course? What about a group process course? What about a teamwork and
problem-solving course?
Is this just a change in semantics? Not really, it's also a change in mindset. This
mindset change would be evident among the students and faculty and I think it's an
important one. How many times have you decided against taking a course based primarily
on its course title? How many times have you been unexcited about a required course
based primarily on its course title? See? Semantics matter.
2) Individualism and Communalism or Individuality and Community?
In my Community course, we have been discussing various theorists within the field
of community studies who have tried to reconcile the tensions between individualism
and communalism. All of these theorists were extremely pessimistic that these two
perspectives cannot exist together. I disagree.
For my first focus paper, I wrote about the key features of community in light of
how they are exemplified by the strongest community I know: HOBY.
For the conclusion of this paper, I explained how the key features as show by HOBY
can solve the individualism vs. communalism debate. This solution involves a change
in semantics. One of the features of a strong community is that of similarity.
However, HOBY is an especially strong community because it allows for variety, which
means that individuality and a sense of self is not overtaken by extreme communalism.
While individualism and communalism may not be able to exist together, individuality
can exist within a strong community because these forms of singlehood and cohesion
are not excessive.
3) Politicians?
As I was reflecting upon my first test for Comparative Politics that I took this
afternoon, I decided that I do not believe in the term, "politicians." Why?
Because having a separate term for those in positions of political leadership sets
them above the citizenry when they shouldn't be.
Politicians? No. They are citizens and should be held to the same standards as all
other citizens and be similarly expected to uphold the negative rights of others.
Politicians? No. They are citizens in a political office. They have the same political
rights as all other citizens and all other citizens should have an equally loud
voice in the political realm. Politicians? No. They should not have such a pedestal.
I think I'm really starting to not believe in a representative political regime.
Also, for your personal edification...
State = a system that administers laws and policies in a territory
Nation = a self-aware group with a shared identity that has or seeks control of the state
Regime = political system
_____--> Liberal Democracy, Communism, Fascism, Modernizing Authoritarian, Theocracy, and Semi-Authoritarian
Government = transient set of ruling people (incorrectly referred to as administration in the U.S.)
expected. I want them to be in a more coherent form.
Word Nerd Semantics
As some of you know, in addition to being a self-proclaimed word nerd, I am also
extremely picky about connotation. That being said, I do not believe in synonyms and
I really appreciate well-crafted semantics. Contrary to the opinion of one of my
classmates, I believe that a seemingly simple change in semantics can make a big
difference.
1) Course Title
Maybe it's because of my homeschooling background, where the semantics of a course
title was extremely important to my yearly objectives and portfolio. Such titles
were even more important for my high school transcript so that the local school
district could understand my outside-the-box learning in their inside-the-box terms.
Cooking? Life skills. Fundraising? Business math. Local field trips? History.
Is this cheating? No. It is true and engaging learning.
In my Public Mental Health class this week, we discussed the social issue of divorce
as far as it is related to community mental health. My professor mentioned proposed
local legislation that would offer (and potentially) require high school students to
take a marriage skills course. Really? First of all, more regulation and requirements
would not be conducive to learning. Second of all, are marriage skills really what
we want to require of high school students?
Why not something that would be immediately applicable? Why not something that would
be applicable to a variety of relationship situations? What about a relationship
skills course? What about a conflict transformation course? What about an interpersonal
communication course? What about a group process course? What about a teamwork and
problem-solving course?
Is this just a change in semantics? Not really, it's also a change in mindset. This
mindset change would be evident among the students and faculty and I think it's an
important one. How many times have you decided against taking a course based primarily
on its course title? How many times have you been unexcited about a required course
based primarily on its course title? See? Semantics matter.
2) Individualism and Communalism or Individuality and Community?
In my Community course, we have been discussing various theorists within the field
of community studies who have tried to reconcile the tensions between individualism
and communalism. All of these theorists were extremely pessimistic that these two
perspectives cannot exist together. I disagree.
For my first focus paper, I wrote about the key features of community in light of
how they are exemplified by the strongest community I know: HOBY.
For the conclusion of this paper, I explained how the key features as show by HOBY
can solve the individualism vs. communalism debate. This solution involves a change
in semantics. One of the features of a strong community is that of similarity.
However, HOBY is an especially strong community because it allows for variety, which
means that individuality and a sense of self is not overtaken by extreme communalism.
While individualism and communalism may not be able to exist together, individuality
can exist within a strong community because these forms of singlehood and cohesion
are not excessive.
3) Politicians?
As I was reflecting upon my first test for Comparative Politics that I took this
afternoon, I decided that I do not believe in the term, "politicians." Why?
Because having a separate term for those in positions of political leadership sets
them above the citizenry when they shouldn't be.
Politicians? No. They are citizens and should be held to the same standards as all
other citizens and be similarly expected to uphold the negative rights of others.
Politicians? No. They are citizens in a political office. They have the same political
rights as all other citizens and all other citizens should have an equally loud
voice in the political realm. Politicians? No. They should not have such a pedestal.
I think I'm really starting to not believe in a representative political regime.
Also, for your personal edification...
State = a system that administers laws and policies in a territory
Nation = a self-aware group with a shared identity that has or seeks control of the state
Regime = political system
_____--> Liberal Democracy, Communism, Fascism, Modernizing Authoritarian, Theocracy, and Semi-Authoritarian
Government = transient set of ruling people (incorrectly referred to as administration in the U.S.)
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Reflection: #ISFLC12
First of all, twitterspeak is pretty obnoxious, but I kind of dig the hashtag trend.
Second of all, I am not entirely sure how I am going to tackle this blog post topic.
I have seventeen pages of handwritten notes from the conference and I need to figure
out a way to make them coherent enough for the general public to read without adding
too much additional personal commentary or exploration. I was originally planning to
publish all of these notes in a single post, but it soon became clear that the sheer
volume of these notes makes that impossible. I will, however, maintain chronological
order throughout the publishment of these notes. In addition to the notes, I will
include the speaker biography and session summary from the conference program.
But for now, to begin, my reflection of ISFLC12.
(side note: my blog would be far more professional if I eliminated internal dialogue)
REFLECTION
The 2012 International Students for Liberty Conference was incredible. I am beyond
glad that I went. I met a great deal of incredible people, attended a variety of
inspiring and provocative sessions, partied, and experienced some ISFLC spirit. This
ISFLC spirit is similar to the HOBY spirit in that it is based on the fact that the
attendees have a deep bond because of one particular similarity. At HOBY, this is
probably leadership and HOBY itself. At ISFLC, it was Libertarianism, activism, and
other politically-related topics. In a recent paper I wrote for Community about HOBY,
I discussed how HOBY creates an extremely strong community because we are similar,
yet a great deal of variety exists. At HOBY, there is a variety of political beliefs,
backgrounds, and general life philosophies. But these things do not tear us apart
because our community is based upon such a resounding similarity. Likewise, at ISFLC,
there was a variety of hometowns, majors, interests, and general philosophies. But
these things did not impair the ISFLC spirit because the community was based upon an
extremely deep bond of similarity. These spirits have been reflected in many of my
friendships, especially in regards to politics. Essentially, my politically-active
friends and I are friends because we are politically-active. Even though the details
of our political philosophies certainly vary, we are not divided by dogma because we
are connected through common action. Even though our action may be headed in different
directions, we are acting together against the same broken system.
This is what unites us.
Second of all, I am not entirely sure how I am going to tackle this blog post topic.
I have seventeen pages of handwritten notes from the conference and I need to figure
out a way to make them coherent enough for the general public to read without adding
too much additional personal commentary or exploration. I was originally planning to
publish all of these notes in a single post, but it soon became clear that the sheer
volume of these notes makes that impossible. I will, however, maintain chronological
order throughout the publishment of these notes. In addition to the notes, I will
include the speaker biography and session summary from the conference program.
But for now, to begin, my reflection of ISFLC12.
(side note: my blog would be far more professional if I eliminated internal dialogue)
REFLECTION
The 2012 International Students for Liberty Conference was incredible. I am beyond
glad that I went. I met a great deal of incredible people, attended a variety of
inspiring and provocative sessions, partied, and experienced some ISFLC spirit. This
ISFLC spirit is similar to the HOBY spirit in that it is based on the fact that the
attendees have a deep bond because of one particular similarity. At HOBY, this is
probably leadership and HOBY itself. At ISFLC, it was Libertarianism, activism, and
other politically-related topics. In a recent paper I wrote for Community about HOBY,
I discussed how HOBY creates an extremely strong community because we are similar,
yet a great deal of variety exists. At HOBY, there is a variety of political beliefs,
backgrounds, and general life philosophies. But these things do not tear us apart
because our community is based upon such a resounding similarity. Likewise, at ISFLC,
there was a variety of hometowns, majors, interests, and general philosophies. But
these things did not impair the ISFLC spirit because the community was based upon an
extremely deep bond of similarity. These spirits have been reflected in many of my
friendships, especially in regards to politics. Essentially, my politically-active
friends and I are friends because we are politically-active. Even though the details
of our political philosophies certainly vary, we are not divided by dogma because we
are connected through common action. Even though our action may be headed in different
directions, we are acting together against the same broken system.
This is what unites us.
Plans for the Immediate Future
I may or may not write two blog posts tonight. Maybe more than that.
What I want to start with is the fact that I outlined multiple blogs during one of my
classes today. Below is the transcription of those notes...
BLOGS
1) Publish ISFLC notes + ISFLC reflection (feels so good to be in a like-minded world,
like HOBY. similarly bonded with variety. individuality + community)
2) Reconciling social work and libertarianism
_____- public mental health: teen pregnancy, increase regulation, marriage skills
_____course, option to opt out, literacy test prior to pregnancy
_____- social work: paperwork, documents, progress notes, bureaucracy
_____(will be an ongoing experiment in reconciliation)
3) Why students hate gen ed courses
_____not because they are outside the major field
__________not because they are unfamiliar/difficult
__________not because they are unrelated/not applicable
_____not because... (more?)
_____because = they seem too gen ed-y
__________- not integrated/applied with/to other majors
_______________~ can be overcome with personal effort, maybe?
__________- are obviously watered-down and simplistic
_______________~ can be good to have an easy course?
_______________~ can be frustrating: too easy/not challenging
_____________________________________too much time/not enough learning
4) Semantics and word nerds
- proposed legislation to offer/require a marriage skills course in HS
_____~ why not a relationship skills course? conflict transformation? interpersonal
_____communication? etc?
- individualism vs. communalism - cannot exist together?
_____~ how about individuality and community?
5) Topics in regards to education
- line segments and school type
_____~ what is most conducive to encouraging outside-the-box thinking?
- elementary schools directed toward girls?
_____~ find current article(s)
(ORDER)
1) foreshadow semantics
2) foreshadow semantics
4) semantics
3) gen ed courses
5) more about education
So, that's what you can look forward to over the next few updates... We shall see
how well all of this planning will work out. In other news, I've decided that my
gen ed courses are ruining my life. Too much work, too few points, and not enough
learning. My two gen ed courses are cutting into valuable time that I would rather
spend becoming immersed in my two really good courses. My fifth course is a wash.
Next on the agenda: Start blog post 1!
What I want to start with is the fact that I outlined multiple blogs during one of my
classes today. Below is the transcription of those notes...
BLOGS
1) Publish ISFLC notes + ISFLC reflection (feels so good to be in a like-minded world,
like HOBY. similarly bonded with variety. individuality + community)
2) Reconciling social work and libertarianism
_____- public mental health: teen pregnancy, increase regulation, marriage skills
_____course, option to opt out, literacy test prior to pregnancy
_____- social work: paperwork, documents, progress notes, bureaucracy
_____(will be an ongoing experiment in reconciliation)
3) Why students hate gen ed courses
_____not because they are outside the major field
__________not because they are unfamiliar/difficult
__________not because they are unrelated/not applicable
_____not because... (more?)
_____because = they seem too gen ed-y
__________- not integrated/applied with/to other majors
_______________~ can be overcome with personal effort, maybe?
__________- are obviously watered-down and simplistic
_______________~ can be good to have an easy course?
_______________~ can be frustrating: too easy/not challenging
_____________________________________too much time/not enough learning
4) Semantics and word nerds
- proposed legislation to offer/require a marriage skills course in HS
_____~ why not a relationship skills course? conflict transformation? interpersonal
_____communication? etc?
- individualism vs. communalism - cannot exist together?
_____~ how about individuality and community?
5) Topics in regards to education
- line segments and school type
_____~ what is most conducive to encouraging outside-the-box thinking?
- elementary schools directed toward girls?
_____~ find current article(s)
(ORDER)
1) foreshadow semantics
2) foreshadow semantics
4) semantics
3) gen ed courses
5) more about education
So, that's what you can look forward to over the next few updates... We shall see
how well all of this planning will work out. In other news, I've decided that my
gen ed courses are ruining my life. Too much work, too few points, and not enough
learning. My two gen ed courses are cutting into valuable time that I would rather
spend becoming immersed in my two really good courses. My fifth course is a wash.
Next on the agenda: Start blog post 1!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
